News: Eurostar claims Environmental high ground over Cheap Flights
Flights > News > # 1006 (09/10/2006)
Passengers who fly between London, Paris and Brussels generate ten times more emissions of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (CO2) than travellers who go by rail, according to a study commissioned by train operator Eurostar.
The research shows that each passenger on a return flight between London Heathrow and Paris Charles de Gaulle generates 122 kilograms of CO2, compared with just 11 kilograms for a traveller on a London-Paris return journey by train. A round trip between London Heathrow and Brussels airport generates 160 kg of CO2 per passenger, against only 18 kg of CO2 for a return journey by rail.
Eurostar claim the figures are the most detailed ever produced and are based on actual passenger numbers, exact distances of rail and air routes, actual aircraft types in use on different routes, and the mix of electricity sources used by the company’s high speed trains.
Eurostar chief executive, Richard Brown, said: “Travellers are increasingly demanding factual information about the environmental impact of their travel plans, and what they can do to reduce emissions of gases which are causing climate change.”
With journey times between London and the Continent set to be cut by 20 minutes with the opening of the line into St Pancras in autumn 2007, Eurostar say the environmental advantages of using their service will be further increased. The research also shows that travelling by high-speed rail will generate even less CO2 per passenger in future years, due to increased supplies of renewable energy and UK policies to reduce CO2 emissions.
Add to:
Related Airlines:
Related Airports:
Comment:
This latest study will certainly add fuel (pardon the pun) to the ongoing debate about the relative environmental and economic impact of air and train travel, but before we let the green lobby get too excited, let's take a closer look at some of the maths. The claim that train travel is responsible for just a tenth of the carbon dioxide emissions is certainly a very powerful one, so rather than try and diminish this argument, let's take it a step further.
Pollution free travel - the theory
Unlike air travel, travel by electric train (or battery-powered cars for that matter) can, at least theoretically, become pollution free, if we are to assume that more and more electricity becomes generated through renewable means. Other European countries, such as Switzerland and Norway, already boast the combination of a heavily electrified rail network and the generation of substantial proportions of their electricity through hydroelectric power. France depends heavily on nuclear power for its electricity generation, which is not without its environmental risks, but that is a debate for another time!
Although there is ongoing research into possible replacements for kerosene, the concept of pollution free air travel, or of a quantum leap reduction in the levels of pollution caused by flying, above and beyond than the steady improvements which are being made is due to improved engine technology and aircraft design, is still a long way off.
So why isn't more being done to encourage the switch from heavily polluting air travel to theoretically clean train travel?
Consumer behaviour
The essential problem boils down to the role of environmental concerns in consumers' decision making. The Eurostar survey shows that concern over the environmental impacts of travel is rising, but such studies often also highlight that the environment is not a key factor for consumers when they make their booking. For the time being at least, price, speed, frequency and convenience come first. Of course Eurostar is set to become increasingly attractive on all the above counts once the second phase of the channel tunnel rail link opens, whereas congested airports are only likely to make air travel less convenient and more stressful.
Infrastructure costs
Despite recent rises in the cost of energy, and the ever increasing clamour from environmental groups for tougher taxes on air travel, the claimed tenfold reduction in pollution which Eurostar offers does not equate to anything like a tenfold reduction in operating costs, or ticket prices. Most airlines will still point out that airport charges and staffing costs remain their biggest overheads, although any additional long-term increase in the price of fuel would make this their biggest cost. Meanwhile, rail networks require substantial investment in infrastructure, which almost always ends up being funded by the taxpayer. We are glad to see that Eurostar is finally winning over the lion share of the market for travel between London and Paris or Brussels, but note that out of the 38 Eurostar units originally built, less than half are currently in service. What a waste!
Most studies, however independent they claim to be, will favour the organisation which commissions them, but in fairness, the Eurostar report does at least look at factors such as occupancy levels, as well as the aviation fuel which is wasted in holding patterns. The whole no-frills airline industry has been based around the quick turnarounds of 150-180 seat passenger jets, yet the Eurostar fleet operates with massive 400 metre long trains, carrying up to 750 passengers. Attempts to develop Eurostar services beyond London never managed to get off the ground, and we somewhat doubt that Eurostar will ever become a major player for journeys between the regional population centres of the UK and France or Belgium, because this fleet would not be adaptable to the facilities at domestic stations, notwithstanding the inherent problems of setting up immigration facilities.
The energy argument will always be a useful bonus for passengers wanting the city centre to city centre links that Eurostar provides, but when faced with a choice between a direct flight from Manchester or Birmingham, or a Eurostar connection via London, consumers are almost always going to go for the flight option because of its perceived convenience.
Cheap flights v Eurostar
It is no coincidence that the market for flights from London to Paris or Brussels has not been particularly well dominated by the no-frills airlines. Even though both cities are served by alternative low cost airports (Beauvais or Charleroi respectively), anyone wanting to head into the centre of these cities does not want to have to deal with a long trek into town (Beauvais is 65 miles north of Paris, Charleroi is 37 miles south of Brussels), when the alternative train service is available. Brussels National airport has never welcomed any UK based no-frills airline, whereas Easyjet only operate flights to Paris Charles de Gaulle from their London Luton base. British Airways have also stopped their London Gatwick to Paris flights due to increased competition from Eurostar. Conversely, when St Pancras International station replaces Waterloo as Eurostar’s London terminus, we wouldn't be surprised to see Easyjet drop their Luton to Paris flights, but restart their Gatwick to Paris route.
Outside the capital, budget airlines have taken much more interest in offering flights to Paris, even from airports which are within reasonably easy reach of Waterloo International. From the Midlands, Thomsonfly operate cheap flights to Paris Orly from Coventry, BmiBaby offer regular flights from Nottingham East Midlands to Paris and Flybe offer twice-daily flights to Paris from Norwich.
The economic reality of air pollution
Even if we accept that the pollution cost of these train journeys is ten times lower than the equivalent flight, how much charge should actually be levied to pay for the environmental damage caused by these aircraft. This brings us back to the 71p figure quoted by the Climatecare group, which itself uses guidance from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). Many environmentalists argue that the impact of aviation’s carbon dioxide are increased by up to four times due to effects such as radiative forcing, but this still keeps the effective emissions charge well below the £5 air passenger duty currently levelled on flights from the UK to Europe.
So why is there so much alarmism about the impacts of aviation on climate change? Part of the problem is that even though air passenger duty was theoretically launched as an environmental tax when Ken Clarke first introduced it in 1993, the money raised ends up going straight into government coffers, rather than mitigating the negative effects of pollution. Perhaps we are being very short-termist in claiming that the current cost of this environmental damage is so “small”, but we do feel it is important to try and put a figure on an argument that is otherwise reduced to the heavily simplistic “planes bad, trains good” scenario.
Will people really switch?
However persuasive Eurostar’s arguments might be, there are still only limited number of other air corridors that they might be applied to - for example London or Birmingham to Scotland, or London to Manchester. The rail argument is utterly irrelevant for flights to Spain, Greece, Ireland and the USA, the four other countries, which together with France, make up the most popular destinations for international flights from the UK.
The endless engineering work on the West Coast mainline, and the huge cost overruns which this project has suffered, make me extremely cautious about the dangers of overplaying the environmental benefits of rail travel. That's why I hope Eurostar will carry on reminding people about the numerous other benefits they offer in terms of convenience, and that efforts to mitigate the environmental impacts of flying look at the industry as a whole, rather than at the sideshow of herding passengers out of the airports and on to trains. Eurostar have already shown us that there are plenty of reasons for people to do this anyway.
